VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On receipt of Annexure B to E summons, Petitioners filed this petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.717 of 2007 on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Changanassery as against them contenting that Annexure A complaint based on which C.C.No.717/2007 was taken cognizance by learned Magistrate, the accused are different and therefore, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is only an abuse of process of the court.

(2.) Though notice was served on the second respondent the complaint before the Magistrate, he did not appear. Annexure A complaint shows that first accused is Akai Consumer Electronics India Limited. Second accused its Managing Director, third accused is a Director and fourth accused its Sales Manager. The offences alleged in Annexure A complaint are Sections 406, 417,418,465, 467,468,469,471 and 474 r/w S.143 and 149 of Indian Penal Code. Annexure B summons was served on First petitioner in that case. First petitioner is Vedeocon Industries. Annexure C summons was served on the second petitioner in his capacity as Managing Director Vedeocon Industries. Annexure D summons was served on the third petitioner in his capacity as Director of Vedeocon Industries. Annexure E summons served on the fourth petitioner in his capacity as Branch Manager of Vedeocon Industries. As the complaint is filed against Akai Consumer Electronics Limited, and its Managing Director, Director and Sales Manager, petitioners who have nothing to do with Akai Consumer Electronics India Limited cannot be summoned to appear in that case by Judicial First Class Magistrate. Hence a report was called for as to how summons happened to be issued to the petitioners. The report submitted by the learned Magistrate shows that in CC No.717 of 2007 cognizance was taken not for the offences under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as shown in Annexure B to E summons but for the offences under Sections 406, 417, 418, 465, 467, 468, 469, 471 and 474 r/w Section 143, 149 of Indian Penal Code. The report further shows that when the summons sent to the accused shown in Annexure A complaint were returned, stating that addressees left the address, fresh summons was ordered in the correct address second respondent furnished new address based on which Annexure B to E summons were issued. The learned Magistrate submitted that it was issued without noticing that the summons was in the name of different persons and are not the original accused company its Managing Director, Director and Branch Manager. The learned Magistrate submitted that it was by mistake, summons happened to be issued and the offence was wrongly shown as Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Learned Magistrate also reported that when the official memorandum was received, a memo was issued to the counsel appearing before the learned Magistrate to explain how a different address was furnished, and it was represented that it was for the reason that Akai Consumer Electronics India Ltd was amalgamated with Vedeocon Industries. Learned Magistrate also pointed out no material was produced to prove the amalgamation. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner asserted that there was no amalgamation as claimed by the counsel before the learned Magistrate.

(3.) As petitioners are not the accused in CC.No.717/2007, there is no necessity to quash the proceedings as against them. Petition is disposed declaring that petitioners are not the accused in CC.No.717/2007 and Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Changanassery cannot proceed against them.